Mike Spence

California Republican Party Platform Drafting Committee Makes Cuts….in Conservative Ideas.

The CRP Platform Drafting Committee drafted a platform to present to the entire platform committee thinks they have a solution for winning election.

Stand for nothing. Pretend we are Democrats and all will be well.

For at least two decades liberals in the party have wanted to water down parts of the platforms that deal with protecting innocent human life, the family and protecting the second amendment. Saturday they got their chance and adopted a platform that does that. The proposed platform deletes over 98% of all the language on those issues.

There is more said about “Defending Agriculture” then protecting marriage or the unborn.

There are some suggestions that were recommended by the committee that make this watered down platform slightly better. Think of it as the first stage of treating waste water. Would you still want to drink it?

Amendments to add in the current pro-life plank and current statement on marriage and the family only received two votes (Myself and Craig DeLuz). The committee ended debate to avoid an amendment to keep the current Right to Keep and Bear Arms Section.

In the debate about the marriage issue, it all became clear where the committee is headed. There is no language about protecting marriage. A “suggestion” was to add a line about traditional marriage. One speaker is fine with that but doesn’t want it to include word like “marriage is between one man and one woman”.

Why?

It was explained that “traditional” marriage means something different in San Francisco than it does in Orange County. The candidates can then define it. Some tradition.
You know the saying about the Democrats being the evil party and that Republicans are the stupid party.

To the assembled liberal politicos is the room opposing a real definition of marriage made complete sense. The CRP wouldn’t want to associate the party with the language of Proposition 8. That would be a bad idea. IT WAS APPROVED BY VOTERS! It won majorities in minority communities. It got more votes than our candidates. We can’t mention we agree with voters that would be madness.

See the stupid party is alive and well.

How did Meg Whitman do running away from Republican ideas? Was you local GOP headquarters full of volunteers when the moderateJohn McCain was the nominee or after Sarah Palin was nominated for Vice-President? I know we are so grateful to Arnold Schwarzenegger for abandoning our party. His victory was worth it. Right?

The next step is the platform committee at the state convention in September. The liberal stand for nothing platform is well funded and well organized. They had staff there for the meeting. ( Several Whitman Veterans have been kept off the unemployment line.)

Will conservatives rally to stop the castration of conservative ideas from the platform?

If not, this watered down platform will drown our party and our candidates.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “California Republican Party Platform Drafting Committee Makes Cuts….in Conservative Ideas.”

  1. Ernie Konnyu Says:

    Historically both party’s platforms have been statements of principles made by the principal coalition members of that party. So Mike is right that leaving out sentences on pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage only, or pro-gun is unacceptable unless, of course, the GOP wishes to eliminate those coalition members from our party. And that’s not going to happen!

    Platforms have never been a basis for winning elections. Frankly,campaigning members of a party don’t even know, for the most part, what is in the state or national platforms. Winning campaign platforms whether national, statewide or in a legislative district are constructed by the respective candidates and not by what is in any party platform. So, if in this instance the drafters of the state GOP platform are using winning as an excuse for excluding certain ideological statements, such exclusions have a phony basis and are non-starters.

    On the other hand, if the GOP platform drafters mean to exclude from our party, pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage and pro-gunnie groups than the drafters are losers, out of their element and are way beyond the power they have been granted to simply draft. The Republican coalition is already a clear minority in California and we can not afford to become an even smaller minority.

  2. Jeannie F Says:

    Unfortunately I will not be able make the September meeting, however there will be plenty of real conservatives attending that are very principled. If the party does not want to stand for anything, people will leave and possibly a third party will look more viable.

  3. Tom Hudson Says:

    So the people who gave us Meg Whitman now want to finish off the Republican Party by eliminating the last vestiges of principle?

    I do not think the State Central Committee will stand for this when it meets in September.

  4. Norman H. Reece Says:

    Thank you, Mike Spence, for your post. Keep up the good work of calling attention to the relentless attacks on CRP Platform.Californian Republican had better wake-up before it is too late. Most of the country is shifting Conservative and to the right on moral issues, while we still have those who insist on following the unprincipled DemoKKKrats. We must pray and fight hard to stop this.

  5. Rohit Joy Says:

    The CRP has got to stand for something or we’ll fall for anything. The time to rally our troops is NOW. This attack on our principles CANNOT stand.

    I know there are people in our party who want us to become more like the Democrats. We grassroots activists will show them what we think of thei plans at the September convention.

  6. bwiese Says:

    Ummmm, not so fast Ernie..

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    [Ernie Konnyu wrote] “…if the GOP platform drafters mean to exclude
    from our party, pro-life, pro-heterosexual marriage and pro-gunnie
    groups than the drafters are losers..”
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

    I and many other Californian gunnies are single-issue gun rights advocates.

    We dislike the supposed lumped association between being pro-gun vs. those other categories.

    [BTW Did you know the fight against Prop 8 shares significant commonality with the ongoing legal fights for incorporating and reinforcing 2nd Amendment rights? Remember that the 2nd Amendment is backed by the 14th Amendment, and do the math from there...]

    In fact, those non-gun attributes you ascribe to as supposed ‘winning’ are PRECISELY why CA Republicans CAN’T/WON’T win statewide elections, nor legislative seats in metro areas outside of some (dwindling) ‘safe seat’ areas, or “out in the sticks”.

    The party ‘bench’ that in theory launches people up the ranks to statewide office is unelectable statewide, and has to bring ‘outlier’ candidates like Arnie or little Stevie Poizner or the horrid eMeg into the fold to have even a remote a chance at winning (part of their lure, perhaps, is they bring their own money so the CA Reep org apparently can party on with existind funds).

    As a gunrights activist, I kinda – just on a sheer cause/effect relationship – look at the CA Republican party’s stance on anti-choice/pro-Prop 8 matters as a defacto antigun position. Why? Because these issues just don’t win (except for keeping a few safe seats). If you wonder why we can barely keep 1/3 legistlators as Reeps in CA, it’s because of these issues: a huge fraction of women don’t want to vote for Reeps (choice is #1 issue for them), moderates don’t like the perceived religious tilt of the party (demonizing perfectly nice people that agree on govermnetal size reduction and increased efficiency and tax reduction).

    For way over the last decade, “choice” has been in the top 2 or 3 items of general concern, esp to the female voter base. By contrast, “crime”->”gun control” has ranked way down the list. Guess who will win on average – two otherwise equal candidates, one waivng a gun and a bag of dead babies, or a candidate that supports gun control and is antichoice? [Witnesseth gun-grabber Danny Lungren back in 2000... NRA members are still p*ssed off at him today.]

    Now, I have no personal dog in this fight on “choice” or Prop 8 drama (other than a general liberty interest), but I’m smart enough to recognize a party with an almost autistic level of self-awareness. Generally when marketeers of dog food end up selling dog food that dogs won’t eat, the mix is changed. If the dogs still won’t eat it, the whole management changes. Somehow the CA Republican party has isolated itself from results-oriented practical capitalism, at least in the dog food realm.

    Frankly, gunnies in CA have gotten more traction from some CA Dems than many Reeps that ‘talk a good gun game’ but don’t follow thru. Very few Reeps have run/driven incremental achievable gun bills. (A thanks and shout out to Curt Hagman and Doug LaMalfa, however.) We’re actually getting good traction from some Democrats – including Rod Wright. And it’s sad we don’t get as much traction on gunrights as we did from our former AG Jerry Brown, a Dem, who showed more pro-gun sentiment in his stint as AG (i.e, running DOJ) than most Rep legislators or past Reep AGs.

    If CA Reeps want to be more relevant to having some power & influence in CA, they need to alienate far less people and realize that supposed “Orange County Virtues” don’t really play in Silicon Valley or many other metro areas. Focus on low taxes, minimal government, pro-business, and staying out of peoples’ lives and you may see some future wins.

    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA

    [PS The last organized Republican voice I recall hearing before the lights went out for Reeps in Silicon Valley was some plaintive loon defending the right of some public schoolteacher to teach Creationism in Cupertino public schools. The latter was essentially run out of town, as I recall. ]

  7. rebernosky Says:

    As a member of the drafting committee I would like to respectfully disagree with Mike. I am one of the authors of the Platform for California’s Future. The committee not only adopted the Platform for California’s Future, but also unanimously adopted a package of amendments that strengthened the positions of our core principles; pro-life, pro-second amendment, pro-traditional marriage and anti-tax. Below is some of the specific language for your convenience.

    On the second Amendment: “We support our Constitutional Second Amendment rights.”
    On Being Pro-Life: “We believe in the sanctity of human life; therefore, we believe in the protection of all innocent human life.”
    On Traditional Marriage: “The Republican Party supports traditional marriage as the foundational unit for our society and key for the future of our children.”

    My friends, the focus of this platform was addition, not subtraction. This platform DOES focus on elements such as jobs, the economy and education- issues that are important to Californians, but it does not lessen our core values. I encourage you all to read through the draft that includes the recommended amendments from the drafting committee. I’m sure you will see that none of our coalitions or core principles were left out. A copy of can be found at bayareagop.com

  8. bwiese Says:

    Rebernosky:

    Thanks for confirmation of your party’s lack of marketability inside CA. You
    just alienated a big part of Middle California.

    Look to this statement for why CA Reeps are the Party of Losers.

    Oh – btw, if you guys are so pro-2nd Amendment, where are any pro-gun bills being carried? The California NRA and CRPA lobbyists don’t seem to be reporting a herd of you guys coming over and offering assistance – guess you want the ‘talk’ without the ‘walk’.

    Bill Wiese
    San Jose CA

  9. Robert Molnar Says:

    Bill Weise….i have often read your postings on Flashreport and have always thought highly of your commentary (especially 2nd amendment issues).

    Would love to chat with you sometime about some of your comments. Please email me at robmolnar1974@gmail.com, i have a couple of questions for you.